Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorable X. K. Baldridge county Attorney Denton aounty Denton, Taxae war sir: opinion NO. o-7043 IN t The authority itatendmt o? sohool for Bo your letter of Ja opinion OS this departmen br you as followa: of seventeen evooatlon of a judgment order 110 Sts-to Sohool f the i3atclarlUe ts upon whloh your request is based as as give you the foilowIng iaots whloh oon- stituta the basis for the ragueet: on the 5th day of xaroh 1942, a male ohild fifteen years of age, who wee duly and legally deolarad to be a honorable x. IL Baldridge - Page 2 delinquent child by the Gounty Court of this County and oomItted to the GatesvIlla State school for Boys until he shall reach the age of t?.enty one years towlt: November 2, 1947. “During the afternoon of the day upon whloh seid ohlld was deolared to be a delinquent ohlld and oomltted to the Catesvllle State Yohool for Boys, the mother of said child together with tha ohlldta uncle appeared berore the County Judge, being also the Judge of the Juvenile Court, and aonvinaed aald Court that It would be to the beat Interest of esld ohlld for him to be paroled to kg,;;$e who was a resident of Oklahoma City, There upon. the Court did render Its order &psndIng his previous order oommIting the child to the Gatesrllle State Sohool for &ys ahd paroled the ohlld to his uncle In Oklahoma City during his good behavior and aubjeat to the further order of the Court. *Thereafter on the 14th day of August 1945, said Court rendered au order finding said ohlld guilty of other acts aonstltutlng him a delinquent ohlld and did on that date revoke the parole granted to him on the 5th day of March 1942 and did order the said ohlld to be delivered to the ouatody OS the Sheriff ard by him transported to the GatesvIlla Stat8 School for mys to serve his aentenoe rendered by said Court on the 6th day of Zaroh 1942.. “Thereafter on or about the 1st day of July lS44, said child was Daroled from the Gatesvilla .State School for Doys to hi8 mother who Is a resident of th!a City. Thereafter on the 9th day of January 1946, It was znade to appear to the Court that said child had aomitted other aats oonstituting him a delinquent ohlld and the parole heretofore granted to said ohlld on or about the let d&y of July 1944, was by said Court revoked and the Court ordered the said ohild to be delIvered to the custody of the Sheriff and by hln honorable W. K. gldrldge - page 3 delivered to the authorities at the Gatesvll?e State Satiool for Boys to oosplate and serve the sentence imposed upon him on the 5th day of Maroh 1942. "On the 11th day Of January 1946, the Sheriff of this County transported the said ohlld to the Catesvllle state Sohool for Boys In oompllsnoe with the Juvenile Order or this aouuty. The superintendent of the Gatesvllle State sohool for Boys refused to aoaept this ohlld on the ground that ha 18 more than seventeen years of age end Is now an adult Insofar as the arkulna law Is ooncerned." Artlale 2338-l (Veruon*s Ann. Clr. Stat., Aats 1943, 46th Ug.) reads In part as follows: ;.~. -sea. 24. ArtIOles 2329 and 2330 of the Zevlsed Civil Statutes of Texa8, 1925, are hers- by repealed. "All laws and parts of lsws in oonfllat hsre- with are also r8pealOd.v Eovmvor, the Act oodalned a saving clause as fol- lows : "Sea. 22. Saving clause. IA all eases where the court has contImIng jurlsdlotlon of the ohlld- ran already adjudged d8lfucU8Ut, any Of the AOtS herein repealed shall aontlnue In foroe as applloable to saFd children, end the provisions of suoh statutes .my continue to be exercised with reference to all such children #here suoh jurlsdlatlon haa already attaohed." In ?zaldonado v. State (L84 S. 'X. (2d) 859), the Court ;~w;Ivll Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, stated In part 8s fol- WSinca the order of Xsy 27, 1943, provides for oontlnuing jurisdiction of the ~uvenlls Court over the minor, Charles Xaldonado, (Art. 233@3, Vernon's Ann. CIV. stat., Ammded kots 1941, 47th Lag.) this HoAOrabla 7. K. Baldridge - Fag8 4 case comas within the provisions of the saving alauee Of the Ju~8~il8 Aot of 1943, and oonse- GUaAtly the law8 nmntloaed a8 being rapesled IA 5380. 24 Of the Act, are n8VWth8leSd 8ff8OtiV8 IASofar 88 this oase IS OOA08rn8d.n IA Opinion No. O-4603 0s the Attorney General 0s Tams, July 18, 1942, the SollovFiag qU8BtiOn was submftted by the EoAOrabl8 R. X. Y&ship, Jr., Superintendent, Geteevllla State school for Boys, for an opinion: Vhere the oommitting Oourt has rsoalled a boy, may It later ordar his return to this sohool lf the boy la then more then sersntaen years of qge-" This question was answered as r0ii0w8t *Under 2338, of the Revised civil Art. statut8s ae amended In 1941, the trial oourt has been gIv8n full povmr and authority to change Its order of oommltreent by the following langua~et "'Suoh order shall be subjeot to ahang by further orders of the court with refOrenCi8 to euoh child; and the oourt shall have the power to change the oustody of suoh ohlld or to entirely dleoharge it from oustody whenever, IA the judgment Of th8 oourt., It la to the best interest of the child to do 80.’ "If the trial court who Issued the order ooz- znIttlAg the boy to the lnatItutIoA should mke any further order relative to the oere, custody or oon- trol of the boy oomitted, It will,, of course, be your duty to obay.:'fia order or orderll of the trial oo\;rt, regardless of how you receive notice thereof." Honorable :c. K. ~ldrldge - Page 8 AOCOrdiAgly, you are respectfully advised that if the OOWitMAt oomplies with the t8l'llla Of our StStUt8S, it I6 the opinion of this deparfment that, under the fsots stated I,A your letter, the Superintendent of the Gateaville State 5ohool for Boys does not have the authority to rSfUS8 re-admlt- tanoe of a parolmwho Is now elghhteen years of age, but who was first Sdmitted to said sohool when under S8Vetlt8OA ybars Of a@. However, while we do not kuow what sot or aots whloh are referred to In the request as Rother acts oonstltuting him a delinquent ohlld* se found by the Oourt and whloh resulted in the court Order of January'~6, 1948, It should be pointed out that 8uOh 8Ot8, whether %hSy are f8lOAIS8 or miedelPsanor8, oould not constitute this eighteen or nineteen year old boy a dellnrucnt OhIld, for only those boys under 88V8At88A years of age may be so olasslfled. Suoh eats though muld bS SUffiUi8Ut reasons for the Court to revoke the parole preriou6ly granted. 7~ wish to point out fttdi8r that any boy who hsd pratl.ously been adjudged a ndellnquent ohlld" m8y be prosecuted for any offen88, whether it b8 a leisdemeanor or felony, oollnitted a- gslnst the laxs of this State after he beoomes seventeen years of Sg8, and the faot that he had prtWiOuSly~ heen SdjUdg8d 8 raelinqubnt ohlld* does not give him immunity from proeeoution for euoh orrsnses. yours very truly ATTORK'IEY GENERAL0.3 TEXAS Bylf?d%-fL.La/ -- Robert L. LattIsKWe,, 'Jr., Assistant James 57. ware R & E Assistant